(The Center Square) – Washington State Court of Appeals Judge Mike Diaz says over 25 years of experience in the legal industry have prepared him to be ready for day one if elected to the state’s Supreme Court.
Diaz is running for Position 3, a seat currently held by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who isn’t seeking reelection. He’ll face King County Superior Court Judge Jaime Hawk and Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens on the August ballot, but only the top two candidates advance to next November.
In an interview with The Center Square, Diaz discussed his background, judicial philosophy, deference to the Legislature, the Blake decision, public defender caseload standards, potential litigation over the state’s new income tax, ethics rules, and whether voters should view the state’s judiciary as partisan.
Diaz, who immigrated from Peru as a child, has spent roughly a decade serving as a federal civil rights attorney, several years as a King County Superior Court judge and about four years on the state Court of Appeals. He argues that his trial and appellate experience sets him apart from the rest of the field.
Notably, Diaz is endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, who sponsored the income tax.
The following Q&A has been edited for length, clarity and readability.
The Center Square: For voters who might not know you yet, can you walk us through your background and why you’re running for the state Supreme Court this year?
Diaz: I immigrated from Peru to Seattle as a kid, and I’ve lived nearly my entire life in this community. I grew up in Ballard, back when it was working-class, and then in White Center, which is still very working-class.
I’ve been in law for over 25 years, including 10 years as a federal civil rights lawyer, and I’m in my ninth year of judging. Never before have I seen the rule of law or judges under attack the way I have now, or the federal government trying to take away rights as I have now.
I think it’s our state courts that will protect rights in Washington and give the next generation the same shot I had as a kid to fulfill my potential. I’m running to make sure the next generation of kids like me has that same chance. I think I would be ready on day one.
I’m supported by three former governors: Jay Inslee, Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke; Attorney General Nick Brown; nine Supreme Court justices; over 100 Court of Appeals and Superior Court judges; major labor unions, including the teachers union and the Washington Federation of State Employees; and I’m solely endorsed by the King County and Pierce County Democrats. I’ve also received high bar association ratings and endorsements from The Stranger and Planned Parenthood.
The Center Square: For people who aren’t very aware of how the court works, can you explain your judicial philosophy in plain English?
Diaz: I believe in a school of judicial philosophy called American Pragmatism.
It’s a tradition popularized by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and associated with judges and justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo and Louis Brandeis. It sees legal interpretation as pragmatic, undogmatic and adaptive.
It understands law as inherited from the past and open to change, though sometimes too slowly for people. It looks at cases, institutions, history and, most importantly to me, the human needs that underlie them.
Judges do that by following age-old procedures and practices, such as the rules of evidence and procedure, which bind decision-making. But the law is also supposed to address people’s problems in a rigorous and thoughtful way. If it doesn’t do that, then it’s not really good for anything.
The Center Square: The Supreme Court is often the final check on decisions made by the Legislature, governor and local governments. Where should the court show deference, and where does it have an obligation to step in?
Diaz: I deeply believe in the separation of powers. The Legislature writes the laws, the executive executes the laws, and the court interprets the laws.
We have rules that require deference to the Legislature. When a statute is written, we look for the plain words of the statute. We don’t try to read words into it that don’t exist. We interpret it in the context of the entire statutory scheme and use rules to get at what the Legislature meant to do.
That said, we have our own state Constitution. I taught Washington Constitutional Law at Seattle University School of Law, including the differences between the federal Constitution and our state Constitution. Judges and justices do have a role as a check when statutes permit state actors or others to violate constitutional rights.
The Center Square: How should judges approach cases where constitutional tax questions and longstanding precedent might conflict with legislative intent?
Diaz: Precedent is extremely important. It is one of those foundational elements of the law that give stability to people’s lives in ways I don’t think people always appreciate.
If you’re married and need to get divorced, or if you want to open a business, lawyers give advice based on precedent. That requires stability and honoring precedent.
That said, precedent does not mean calcification. It doesn’t mean something can never be overturned. We have rules and guidelines for that. When a long-held precedent, especially in a constitutional matter, is found to be both wrong and harmful, then the precedent can be overturned. That’s appropriate.
The best thing a judge or justice can do is make sure that when people walk into your courtroom, they know they’re going to get a fair shake. They may walk away unhappy because they lost, but they should walk away knowing they were treated just like everybody else.
The Center Square: The Supreme Court often decides cases and creates rules that have major effects on taxpayers, public safety and law enforcement. How much should those real-world impacts factor into a justice’s ruling?
Diaz: It has to factor in on some level.
When you go through principles of statutory construction, one principle is that we don’t interpret a statute to generate absurd results. You try to interpret it practically. That goes to the core judicial philosophy that we are not mechanically bound by what somebody thought in 1789. We are not bound mechanically only to words on a page. There is more human thinking that goes into this.
The Supreme Court has handled cases as diverse as Blake and McCleary in different ways. In McCleary, the court held onto jurisdiction for years. In Blake, it did not; instead, cases were resolved at different times as issues came up.
I have experience with this not just academically, but in the real world. Some of the cases I brought were institutional or systemic reform cases, where reforms would happen over years. One of my pitches is that I’ll be ready on day one because of that prior work.
The Center Square: Critics point to the new public defender caseload standards and the Blake ruling as decisions with major taxpayer impacts. Do you think those were rightly decided, and who is responsible for the resulting costs?
Diaz: I appreciate the question, but the framing is challenging for someone who wants to join the court.
The reality is that Blake is precedent. The reality is that there is a rule before the Supreme Court on public defender caseload standards. For candidates, the question is more about how you would handle these things differently, if you would at all.
As a Court of Appeals judge, I’ve had probably half a dozen Blake-related cases come through. Some issues could not have been anticipated, including a claim that Blake defendants should be reimbursed for community service required in simple drug possession cases.
The more interesting question is what it means for the Legislature and the courts to have this conversation, and how important it is to consider downstream economic effects when constitutional rights are at stake.
On the public defender caseload standards, I was at the U.S. Department of Justice when we filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit against Mount Vernon and Burlington over public defender funding and caseloads. That matter was handled over a period of years.
The reality is that we have a public defender shortage. Part of that might be because caseloads are crushing, so that has to be part of the solution. But there are other parts of the solution as well. This is going to be a conversation over years, if not a decade.
Quick, easy solutions are not the way human beings handle these problems. We are not the first people in the country to deal with a public defender shortage. We have models, and an open, transparent conversation with the Legislature is better than pointing fingers.
The Center Square: A lot of voters are paying attention to this year’s Supreme Court races because of the state’s new income tax and litigation that could eventually reach the court. Without asking you to prejudge a potential future case, what can you tell voters about how you would approach disputes over limits on the state’s tax authority?
Diaz: I appreciate the qualification that you had at the beginning.
I’m on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which is essentially the ethics board for judges. We receive complaints, investigate and can discipline judges for violating judicial ethics canons, such as making pledges or promises or commenting in a way that could affect a case.
I want to be really careful, and unfortunately that means speaking at a level of generality, which isn’t always satisfying for people.
What I can say is that I will use the same principles of statutory and constitutional construction that you can see me applying case after case. I’ve written more than 200 opinions, almost 30 of which have been published. You can see how I review the record, do the research and analysis, engage with my colleagues, hear from counsel and write an opinion.
That same process is what I would apply, whether it’s the millionaires’ tax, a state pension case or an important criminal case. I will apply the same tools day in and day out and treat every person the same way.
The Center Square: Because you’re on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, what do you think voters have a right to know about judicial candidates, and should the rules change regarding what candidates can say?
Diaz: Voters are entitled to know nearly everything about a candidate short of violating a particular rule.
The First Amendment rights of judicial candidates are limited in some respects, but not entirely. Judicial candidates should answer honestly about their background, values, experience and the things you would ask in a job interview.
The limits are few but important. You’re not supposed to make pledges or promises about cases. You also don’t want judges commenting on cases in a way that affects the appearance of impartiality. Judges and justices have to set aside personal views, assess the facts and follow the law.
I don’t know that we need changes to those rules as much as we need a better understanding of what judges can say and why they cannot say certain things. It’s not to dodge questions. It’s so we can maintain a nonpartisan place where people get a fair shake.
The Center Square: These races are nonpartisan, but several candidates have clear support from the left or right. You have a lot of Democratic establishment support. How do you respond to concerns that Washington already has a partisan judiciary?
Diaz: I have support from leaders, districts and organizations that might be viewed as partisan, but I don’t go to their events other than to seek endorsements when I’m a judicial candidate or to support a judicial candidate. For example, I won’t go to a fundraiser for Attorney General Nick Brown, who is a former coworker and supporter. There is a clear line.
The concern about the judiciary being overly partisan may tie into the perception that Democrats have dominated gubernatorial races and that several justices got there initially through appointment. For myself, I’m running for an open seat.
Even when you are appointed, I’ve stood for election three times, in 2018, 2020 and 2022, and I’ve never gotten a challenger. The electorate has had an opportunity to get me out of there if they thought I was overly partisan or in someone’s pocket.
I deeply believe in nonpartisan judging. It has to be that way. It’s one of the main reasons I’m running: to maintain the rule of law, which was foundational for my family when we immigrated here from Peru.
The Center Square: Concerns have been raised about judicial candidates receiving endorsements and donations from political figures they previously donated to. Have you donated to campaigns of former governors who endorsed you or AG Nick Brown, and would any of that require recusal?
Diaz: I don’t want to comment on anybody else’s recusal propriety. That’s the kind of thing that can come before the CJC.
I’ve been in public service for almost 20 years. I started at the Justice Department in 2008 and then at the U.S. Attorney’s Office as an assistant U.S. attorney. There is a law called the Hatch Act that prohibits civil servants, especially those in the Justice Department, from engaging in partisan behavior. My First Amendment rights, including the right to donate to a political campaign, have been limited for a long time.
I don’t know that I’ve donated to any of the campaigns you mentioned: Inslee, Gregoire, Locke, Nick Brown or Gov. Ferguson. Ferguson has not endorsed me in this race, by the way.
If it came up, the rule is relatively simple: You have to be impartial and appear to be impartial. If the appearance of impartiality can reasonably be questioned, then you should recuse yourself.
I’ve recused myself a handful of times. I maintain a recusal list that includes lawyers at my wife’s firm and close friends who are judges because people could reasonably question my impartiality.
A donation or endorsement is not automatic grounds for recusal. It depends on the facts, how long ago it was, whether there is a personal relationship, and whether the official is being sued in an official capacity or in a more direct capacity.
The Center Square: What sets you apart from the other candidates for Position 3, and what should voters be asking themselves before the primary?
Diaz: I would ask voters to look at the depth and quality of experience.
I practiced law actively for 16 years, including six years in private practice and 10 years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. I did both civil and criminal law. In civil law, I did both plaintiff and defense work. As a federal civil rights lawyer, I mostly brought housing, employment and education cases, but I also defended the U.S. government in important cases.
Now, as a judge, I’m in my ninth year of judging, which is much longer than my opponents’. I’m also the only candidate who has served as both a trial court and an appellate court judge, not just in my race, but across the field of 16 candidates for five positions.
As a trial court judge, I tried dozens and dozens of cases. As an appellate court judge, I’ve written more than 200 opinions and been on more than 700 panels in almost four years.
I also teach Washington Constitutional Law. I think about these issues practically as a judge and practitioner, but also academically. That’s one of the unique things about being a Supreme Court justice. You get more time to think deeply and write more developed decisions when it is important to do so.
Overall, the quality and depth of my experience are what set me apart.
I would ask voters to consider why they should care. There are five spots on the court up for election this year, and you could change the composition of the court. Judicial races are low-profile and low-information events, but voters are probably locking in judges for a good chunk of time. We get six-year terms.
It is important to take this seriously and get it right. I humbly ask for their vote because I think I have the breadth, depth and quality of experience to be ready on day one.